sebi:Order/PB/AS/2021-22/12825

SEBI · SEBI · 2020-10-28 · Parag Basu, Adjudicating Officer

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Penalty imposed on Noticee for failure to make disclosures under PIT Regulations, 1992

Provisions invoked

• s. 15A
• s. 15
• s. 15J
• s. 28A

Regulations

• Reg. 13
• Reg. 12

Parties

• Pradeep Kumar Jindal & Sons HUF

Holding

The Noticee, as promoter of Delta Leasing & Finance Ltd, violated regulation 13(4A) and 13(5)(b) of the PIT Regulations, 1992 read with regulation 12 of the PIT Regulations, 2015 by failing to make required disclosures on two occasions (May 27, 2014 and June 26, 2014), and a penalty of Rs 1,00,000 was imposed under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992.

Full text

Adjudication order in respect of Pradeep Kumar Jindal & Sons HUF in the matter of Delta Leasing & Finance Ltd Page 2 of 15 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Adjudication Rules, 1995) to inquire into and adjudge under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992, the alleged violation of provisions of regulation 13(4A) and 13(5)(b) of the PIT Regulations, 1992 read with regulation 12 of the PIT Regulations, 2015. Thereafter, the present proceedings were transferred to Shri K Saravanan, conveyed vide communique dated October 28, 2020, and further, to the undersigned, conveyed vide communique dated July 14, 2021.

Adjudication order in respect of Pradeep Kumar Jindal & Sons HUF in the matter of Delta Leasing & Finance Ltd Page 3 of 15 of PIT Regulations, 1992. Following are the details of instances in which the Noticee failed to make such disclosures: Name Date No of shares Acquired/ disposed of * No of shares Acquired/ disposed of (as % of paid up capital)* Value of transaction (Rs.) Pradeep Kumar Jindal and sons (HUF) 27-May-14 286095 2.47 53213670.00 26-Jun-14 132530 1.14 33689126.00

Adjudication order in respect of Pradeep Kumar Jindal & Sons HUF in the matter of Delta Leasing & Finance Ltd Page 4 of 15 the sake of penalizing an error made several years ago. Moreover, Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal in the case of Anita Jajodia & Anr. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India, Appeal No. 30 of 202, held that the undue delay is a mitigating factor which has to be considered while imposing a penalty under section 15J of the SEBI Act. The overall quantum of trades by the Noticee during the period of investigation accounted for 3.61% of the total No. of shares. It is very pertinent to put forth that the miniscule /negligent quantum of buy trades by the Noticee cannot be said to be fraudulent or manipulative. That, all the trades executed by the Noticee were genuine transactions with a specified purpose of consolidating his holding which is evident from the fact that he had only buy transaction during the investigation period. The fact that no sales transactions were made by the Noticee shows that the intention of the Noticee was not to indulge insider trading. The Noticee had consistently complied with all the requirements of law including the SEBI Act, Regulation and Rules and the SEBI Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations, 1992. The Noticee had been regular in submitting all the required information in physical format to the Stock Exchange on time as per mandatory requirements. In view of the above submissions, all the alleged defaults may be cond

Source: SecMarx — sebi:Order/PB/AS/2021-22/12825. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.